Guest column: Montana needs a balanced approach to support families and workers - Heather O'Loughlin Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

This article is doctrinaire leftist agitprop. The author contents herself with regurgitating tired leftist talking points and bumper sticker slogans. She does her best to paint most of Montana as being in desperate straights, a problem that can only be solved by government. 

So she opposes returning money to overtaxed Montanans. She reflexively assumes that government is better choice to spend money than the taxpayers who originally earned the money.

Further, she does not advocate for a "balanced approach." It's a full-on leftist spending nightmare.

-----------------

The wages of sin is death - whose death? Roman 6:23

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered what we think are unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were too lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that there is more than one way to interpret doctrine, more than one way to think about the faith, and more than one way to read the Scriptures. We would not suggest that our way is the only way, or the right way; we are not Bible scholars. But we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to rightly divide the Word of God.

Getting grace and faith right - By Simon Van Bruchem

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------

We previously commented on this author here, and were not impressed. So today we are hopeful that the he will do better. Sadly, he will not. He gets the faith part right, but he gets grace wrong.

The author writes, grace is getting something good that we don’t deserve. This is wrong. Completely wrong. Incredibly wrong.

Grace is xáris, preeminently used of the Lord's favor – freely extended to give Himself away to people [because He is "always leaning toward them"]. God always leans towards us. Always. He always is giving Himself away. Always. 

Grace is the outflowing blessing and goodness of God to men, without regard for merit or unmerit. He doesn't pay attention to deservedness. Neither does He consider UNdeservedness. Neither concept is in the Bible. Go ahead, check it out. You won't find it anywhere. It's just not part of the equation.

Now, we certainly realize that the idea of grace as underserved favor permeates Christian understanding. It's well entrenched. It's repeated endlessly. But it's wrong. 

More importantly, the author intends to explain biblical concepts without using the Bible. This is our continual complaint, that these supposed "Bible teachers" so rarely quote the Bible. 

----------------------

Five Reasons Not to Observe Lent - Disntr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

The nameless author should have titled this, "Five Abiblical Reasons Not to Observe Lent."

We do not intend to defend Lent, we want to look at the author's "teaching." Happily, he does quote some Scripture, but too often mishandles it. Plus, he seems to like making statements as if they're self-evidently true.

It appears that he has some sort of pre-conception in mind regarding Lent, as if the rituals and habits associated with it disqualify the practice itself. Or, maybe the problem is with certain denominations. Or maybe it's just with unsaved people going through the motions. Hard to tell.

In any case, the actions and attitudes of people practicing Lent are a matter apart from what Lent actually is.)

---------------------

Hospitality and Apostle John’s shocking words about false teachers - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

We were also shocked. But our shock was to find an Elizabeth Prata article that is thoughtful and articulate, containing not only pertinent Bible references but Bible quotes as well. Though in the past we have found much fault with her Bible exposition, we are delighted to repost this highly informational and biblically accurate article.

----------------

Why It’s Good to be Skeptical of the Asbury Revival - Jordan Standridge

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author's skepticism is based on semantics, tradition, and preconceptions. We can't call it revival, because we don't know if anyone is being revived. We can't call it revival, because revival must look the a certain way. We can't call it revival, because revivals only happen in churches. It can't be revival, because the Gospel wasn't preached.

It seems to us that revival is whatever God wants it to be. It looks however God wants it to look. God can use any sermon, any setting, and any group of people to bring revival.

Revival is chayah:

3. quicken, revive, refresh:

a. restore to life, the dead 1 Samuel 2:6; Deuteronomy 32:39; Hosea 6:2; the dying Psalm 71:20.

b. cause to grow, grain Hosea 14:8.

c. restore, a ruined city 1 Chronicles 11:8, stones destroyed by fire Nehemiah 3:34.

d. revive, the people by himself with fulness of life in his favour Psalm 80:19; Psalm 85:7; Psalm 119:25,37,40,50,88,93,107,149,154,156,159; Psalm 143:11; Ecclesiastes 7:12.

Some OT verses that speak of revival:

Ps. 119:37 Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things, And revive me in Your way.

Is. 57:15 For this is what the high and lofty One says — he who lives for ever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.

What the NT has to say:

Ac. 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 3:19-21 ESV Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.

Ro. 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Ephesians 5:14 ESV For anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

Surely the Church, this nation, and the world needs revival. Revival in a rekindling of flagging faith, revival in new salvations, and revival in the preaching of the Gospel. That is, revival in every facet of the faith, invading godless structures, cold, dead churches, and evil strongholds for the sake of the Kingdom. 

It's God's purpose and desire in these Last Days.

Does the author want this? Then he might want to abandon his skepticism. It isn't useful. In fact, the author ought to be praising God for the possibility that it might be revival. And he might want to check out what actual witnesses have written. Nearly every criticism the author makes gets negated. 

It's quite likely this is real revival.

---------------------

The New and Absurd Doctrine of "Functional Cessationism" - By Anthony Wade

 Found here. Our comments in bold.
‐-----------

The petulant Rev. Wade is back, and he's just as unedifying as ever. Typically garrulous, here he expends nearly 2000 words (minus quoted material) to explain exactly zero. Further, other than the opening passage, he never quotes the Bible. Not once.

His typical techniques are 

• contradiction without explanation
• rephrasing and redefining what his opponent wrote
• making assertions as if they were self-evidently true
• stream-of-consciousness prose wandering around looking for a point

There is no edification in this "devotional." Rev. Wade does what he always does: Isolate and attack a target for barely understandable reasons and invented offenses. A favorite one is Joseph Mattera, who is his target today. However, we do not intend to defend Mattera, we are only interested in Rev. Wade's presentation.

What's absurd in not "functional cessationism," but rather Rev. Wade's screed.

We shall see how long we are able to endure under this barrage of half-formed thoughts, irrelevant tangents, and imperious superiority.

----------------------------

Either God Must Punish Sin or There is No Need for Forgiveness - by Doug Eaton

Our comments in bold.

-----------------

We first came across another of the author's articles here, which was a scriptureless "defense" of the reformist doctrine known as Penal Substitutionary Atonement. We briefly commented there about the lack of Scripture, and we also contested the idea that the Father punished Jesus.

The author responded with a link to 80+ Scriptures, none of which were about the Father punishing Jesus. The author did quote one:

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.

He also linked to the below article, which is the subject of today's post, and lastly, we will take up this Scripture. 

-----------------

3 Surprising Agreements Pastors Must Make - by Jared C. Wilson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

This is simply wrong. There's no other way to put it. None of these "agreements" are found on the Bible. None of these "agreements" are unique to pastors. None of these "agreements" are implicit in the role of pastor.

But more to the point, there is no biblical justification for pastors leading churches. It just isn't there. All the author's leadership advice is completely misplaced. 

The church is to be led by elders:

1 Pe. 5:1-3 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve;

3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

We believe that pastors receive advice like this to their detriment. These things reinforce incorrect church structure, and contribute to dissension, dissatisfaction, and ultimately, burnout.

A Biblical pastor cares for the flock. He's good with people, he builds relationships, and fosters the unity of the the Body.

Therefore, the below advice should be ignored.

-------------

Letter to the editor: Senate Bill 99 symbolizes Republican hypocrisy - by Ruth Kopec

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The letter writer thinks she has Republicans nailed. They oppose funding for genital mutilation but want parents to have control over their children's education. This constitutes hypocrisy in the eyes of the letter writer. How this is arrived at is a mystery.

----------------

Not a Dinosaur: Understanding Leviathan in the book of Job - by Mitch Chase

  
Found here. An interesting article.

-------------

Among the speakers in the book of Job, the Lord gives the final speech (in chs. 38–41). And the last thing he speaks about is Leviathan. What is Leviathan? Are there clues in the text or outside of the book that help us identify it? Let’s see what we see.

Structure

First, the structure of Job 38–41:

• The Lord speaks (38:1—40:2)
• Job speaks briefly (40:3–5)
• The Lord speaks (40:6—41:34)

Literarily, Job’s words in 40:3-5 divide the sections 38:1—40:2 and 40:6—41:34. Why might such a division be significant? Because of the content of the respective sections of the Lord’s speech.

In 38:1—40:2, the Lord talks about things like creation, dividing the seas, giving rain, and providing for animals. We’re on board with those topics. They remind us of the things we’ve read in Genesis 1 as well as parts of Psalms which rejoice in God’s power over creation.

But in 40:6—41:34 we face two big topics: Behemoth (40:6-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34). I want to focus on Leviathan. There’s something climactic about this figure because he occupies the last part of the last big speech in the book.

Letter to the editor: Far right's brand of Christianity is unrecognizable - by Bonnie McGowan

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

This is a typical leftist taking on Bible-beleiving Christians, Christianity, and conservatives. Needless to say, she gets very little correct. But the most egregious thing is her smug judgment of other Christians while simultaneously quoting the "judge not" verse. 
--------------------

Several “Christian” Bands Perform Alongside Satanic Ritual at Grammys - disntr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

The unnamed author of this article might have a point, but he forfeits the opportunity to teach and explain. If Christian musicians should not perform worship songs at a secular event where godless people are doing godless things, the author would need to tell us the reasons why. He needs to make his case. Lay out the biblical case as best he can, and we will decide for ourselves.

But he doesn't do this. All he can do is whine .

In our opinion, the very best place for a Christian witness, and the place we ought to seek is right in the midst of inequity. The testimony will shine brighter than the darkness.

Good for them. 

----------

Guest column: Gianforte’s tax cuts? Montana has been there, done that - by Ken Toole Guest columnist

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Mr. Toole is a leftist, a former state politician who found a cushy post-government job pushing leftist policy initiatives.

So it's no surprise finding him writing leftist agitprop consisting almost entirely of tired leftist talking points and bumper sticker slogans.

Nor is it a surprise he is opposed to returning tax money to its rightful owners. But he doesn't have a reason, he doesn't explain anything, and he can't tell us why the government is a better choice to spend your money. 

---------------

Why Left Media Needs Your Support - By Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold

------------------

The reliably garrulous Mr. Robinson clocks in again with over 2300 words of leftist agitprop. 

After reading this screed, we must conclude that Mr. Robinson is envious of the Right. Its popularity is the basis for his plea for funding. Give us more money, he says, to compete with the eeevil right wing media complex. 

Not content with the Left's dominance over the networks, every major newspaper, most every university, the public school system, and Hollywood, he begs us to pony up dough to support even more leftist media.

This in fact is just a giant fund raising letter.

And, we can answer the question contained in the title much more succinctly and dare we say, perceptively: The Left media needs support because it cannot provide the product necessary to support itself. The simple fact of the matter is, the Left's ideas are unpopular, unworkable, and frankly, evil. Marxism has caused more mayhem, murder, and destitution than any other system. No wonder no one wants to fund it.

-----------------------

“The Chosen” and the Sufficiency of Scripture - by TRAVIS KERNS

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------

Mr. Kerns disappoints us. There's a scholarly veneer to his presentation, but that quickly develops cracks as he wanders farther and farther into seeming irrationality. By the end of his article he's making wild claims about this TV show that are simply not justified by the things he presents.

In addition, he repeatedly asserts that the sufficiency of Scripture does not allow for the possibility for other information. It's a truly odd claim not found in the Bible nor practiced by any Christian including himself.

We had hoped to discover what, if any, flaws in this TV show, with analyses of the show's perspective and doctrine. We do not find that, unfortunately.

We seriously doubt Mr. Kerns has ever seen the show.

We should note that we are not here to defend The Chosen. We also have never seen it. We are here to examine Mr. Kerns' claims.

-----------------

Why Should the Apostles Be Trusted? - By Doug Powell

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

*Sigh* There isn't a single Scripture in this entire presentation. No quotes, not even a reference. We will provide Scripture references for the author, since he can't bother with them himself.

It seems that he isn't trying to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the apostles so much as he wants to show how unique and special they are, and by implication that there are no more apostles. 

--------------------

The Old Testament sacrifices teach us a great deal - By Simon Van Bruchem

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The author makes many assertions, but doesn't quote a single word of the Bible. Not one. Not even a Bible reference. What he does do is regurgitate a particular Reformist doctrine, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. And he does so fluidly. It spills from him like second nature. But absent scriptural proof, it is only so much effluent.

We have written extensively about this doctrine, and have found it to be completely false. We encourage the reader to see for himself.

So this fellow intends to tell us what to believe. But a person who represents himself as a Bible teacher but doesn't use the Bible is a false teacher.

-----------------